Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-02.txt

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:04:23 -0400

All,

This is a GEOPRIV Working Group Last Call for comments on

draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-02.txt

Please send your comments to the list by 9 September 2009.  As always, 
please remember to send a note in if you've read the document and have 
no other comments other than "its ready to go" - we need those as much 
as we need "I found a problem".

Thanks,
--Richard

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:49:12 -0500

This document is ready.

One comment, one question:

(Opinion only) Statements like this are generally not suitable for documents that are intended to have a long lifetime:
   Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications
   and location based services were observable on the Internet.

Has this document been forwarded to the URI list <mailto:[email-masked]> for review?

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 5:04 AM
> To: 'GEOPRIV'
> Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-02.txt
> 
> All,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:25:32 -0400

[chair hat off]

This is ready to go, other than one substantive issue:

The last two paragraphs of section 9.2 say:

> However, by putting a 'geo' URI into a context that allows  
> identification of a "Target", the URI might become part of a  
> "Location Object", and would then be subject to GEOPRIV rules.

> Therefore, Publishers of 'geo' URIs that are put into such contexts  
> MUST consider privacy issues, particularly in cases where a URI  
> instance is combined with Personally Identifyable Information (PII)  
> with the intent to describe the location of a Target that is a person.

The first of these two statements seems more on the right track than  
the second. If a geo URI is used in a context where it identifies the  
location of a Target, it becomes part of a Location Object and is  
therefore subject to GEOPRIV rules. I don't see the need to waffle on  
this point, or to avoid using the requirements that we already have  
set out in 3693. Therefore, the second paragraph would be better as:

Therefore, when 'geo' URIs are put into such contexts, the privacy  
requirements of RFC 3693 MUST be met.

Other small comments:

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>
> (Opinion only) Statements like this are generally not suitable for  
> documents that are intended to have a long lifetime:

I agree with this opinion. I think the whole paragraph that this  
sentence kicks off should be situated a bit more "timelessly." A few  
suggestions:

s/Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications  
and location based services were observable on the Internet./Location- 
aware applications and location-based services are fast emerging on  
the Internet.

s/a vivid open source mapping community brought an enormous momentum/a  
vivid open source mapping community has brought enormous momentum

s/A wide range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible  
to professional only became available for a wider audience./A wide  
range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible to  
professionals only have became available to a wider audience.

Other thoughts in section 1:

s/or trigger further services/or triggering further services

s/and write and email straight away/and writing an email straight away

s/(a physical resource)/(physical resources)

s/It is anticipated that such devices serve as/It is anticipated that  
such devices will serve as

Section 3.4.1:

s/a wrong/the wrong

Section 3.4.3

s/subject/object

(I think "subject" implies a person, but we can have cases where a non- 
human object's location is uncertain.)

Question: if the assumption is that the single uncertainty value  
applies in all dimensions (which I think is the assumption, but I am  
far from the uncertainty expert), should that assumption be stated?

3.4.4

s/180 degrees MUST be considered equal a/180 degrees MUST be  
considered equal to a

3.5

s/require internationalization-/require internationalization.

9.1

s/refering/referring

9.2

s/a 'geo' URI by itself/within the confines of a 'geo' URI

s/it does also not fit/it also does not fit

s/Publishers/publishers
(although per my comment above I think "publishers" should be left out  
altogether)

Alissa

---

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:32:09 +0200

Noted, thanks. 

Alex

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:26 PM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-02.txt
> 
> [chair hat off]
>